Is Gender Social or Biological: A Poll - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Gender Informed By Biological Sex?

1. A Person's Gender Is Entirely Informed By Their Biological Sex.
21
39%
2. A Person's Gender Is Primarily Informed By Their Biological Sex.
15
28%
3. A Person's Gender Is Half Determined By Biology and Half Determined By Society.
7
13%
4. A Person's Gender is Primarily Determined By Society.
7
13%
5. A Person's Gender is Entirely Informed By Their Society.
4
7%
#14850290
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Whether or not gender roles are a social construct is part of what is being contended,


I am fairly sure that gender roles are defined as social constructs.

and I would say identity is the same thing.


Well, it's not the same thing, and I am not going to change the meaning of words.

Are traditional "masculine" roles determined, in any sense, by the biological make-up of the male-sex? Likewise, in deviant cases, is homosexual or transsexual behavior (which encompasses roles and identities) biologically determined in any sense?

Even in the example you used in an attempt to differentiate, the nature of identification assumes roles to a degree. For instance, a man who transitions to being a woman as a transgender phenomena will typically do more than augment their breasts and remove their male genitals, often they grown long hair and wear feminine clothing etc., and in fact, if told such a person that they could do the former physical changes but not the latter "social" changes, they often would not have transitioned at all as the physical augmentation was used as a means of acquiring the desired role. If this is the case, then whatever happens regarding transgenderism is not merely psychological, but has a lot to do with roles as socially defined, and those "stereotypical" roles are argued to have direct relationships to biological determinisms by many and not without warrant: e.g. men are larger and have higher aggression due to testosterone, so is the "machismo" culture in Latin America purely social then?. Women have higher levels of empathy and bear offspring, so is the "role" of homemaker "purely" and "only" social, or has biology informed this role? How does this explain men transitioning from one identity to the other?

I am not making an argument either way at this point, I am just defending why this is a good poll, and (in point of fact), the mixed results in the polling data seem to indicate that this is an actual point of confusion and contention among PoFo members.


Yes, people on this site are often confused, and some do not even know or accept the difference between sex and gender.

Making a poll out of it actually reinforces the notion that these things are not already clearly defined and that their opinion about it is just as important as empirical reality.

But since the defintions of these words are not based on the feelings of Pofoites, I have no idea whynthis is a poll, unless you want to determine how mnay PoFoites are incorrect about this.
#14850318
Wellsy wrote:To speak more plainly, are you saying that there are biological facts of the sexes that then inform their behaviour not in a sense that they are born with a psychological tendency towards such things but just as conscious beings it draws them towards certain practices?
Like for example, women getting pregnant shapes their decision making in regards to sexual practices.


I was playing devil's advocate for the biological-determinist position that I felt your mis-characterized in a sloppy manner. Thus, to speak on the part of biological-determinist, and assuming I understand your question rightly....the answer is "Yes."

Women (in the example we are using) will consciously choose certain "gender expressions" or roles based on certain biological facts. The awkward aspect of your question is that it makes a distinction between psychological predisposition and conscious choice in relation to biological facts. The psychological predispositions ARE (among several others) the biological facts that result in the agent consciously choosing certain socially manifested roles. Not only this, but pragmatic consideration based on an observation of biological facts which differentiate the sexes likewise have, historically speaking, contributed to such role development, differentiation, and designation. This includes women changing their sexual practices or considerations regarding roles based on biological facts-of-life such as pregnancy. Indeed, both traditional and feminist aspirations in gender are but theories and principles-in-the-abstract until a child is actually born. Child-birth and motherhood have been the most effective disruptors of feminist beliefs for women who once held them.
#14850322
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am fairly sure that gender roles are defined as social constructs.


Well since my definition of such was the point of contention and subject of your inquiry/objection, why the fuck would you wonder what my definition was or argue against it? In discourse, the one presenting the argument reserves the right to determine his definitions and his opponent is to test or respond to his premises on the grounds of those stated definitions. Either way, my point is, that Gender, as it encapsulates both questions of "roles" and "self-identification" are clearly socially occuring events, but whether such "events" are biologically determined is the subject of both debate and the poll. Thus, regardless of who else defines what, whether any aspect of gender (role, identities, or both) is a social construct or biologically informed/determined is the subject of the debate and poll at hand.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, it's not the same thing, and I am not going to change the meaning of words.


You are misrepresenting my argument. Bad form bro.

I said they are the same thing in the sense that they are subsets to the broader category of gender. That is my "definition" in terms of the poll and I have been clear on this. You are the only simpleton here who is struggling with this.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, people on this site are often confused, and some do not even know or accept the difference between sex and gender.

Making a poll out of it actually reinforces the notion that these things are not already clearly defined and that their opinion about it is just as important as empirical reality.

But since the defintions of these words are not based on the feelings of Pofoites, I have no idea whynthis is a poll, unless you want to determine how mnay PoFoites are incorrect about this.


Yes, and the geocentric model was "settled" and perpetuating debate on it was just a big waste of time right? Scientific consensus or established opinion trade at zero value in the market place of ideas. Debating these matters, as they are controversial, is important for clarity in reasoning and principle and they have moral and political consequences. If you don't care to debate because you already know better and think this thread is a waste of time, then just leave. Otherwise, put-up and shut-up and debate and defend your position. I'm all ears and will always give you a fair hearing.
#14850448
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well since my definition of such was the point of contention and subject of your inquiry/objection, why the fuck would you wonder what my definition was or argue against it? In discourse, the one presenting the argument reserves the right to determine his definitions and his opponent is to test or respond to his premises on the grounds of those stated definitions. Either way, my point is, that Gender, as it encapsulates both questions of "roles" and "self-identification" are clearly socially occuring events, but whether such "events" are biologically determined is the subject of both debate and the poll. Thus, regardless of who else defines what, whether any aspect of gender (role, identities, or both) is a social construct or biologically informed/determined is the subject of the debate and poll at hand.


Why would a "normal" vanilla cis person's gender identity be based on anything other than their biological sex? How is it a social construct?

I can see why it would be for trans people, but it might not be either if trans gender identity is a result of neurological (i.e. biological) factors.

You are misrepresenting my argument. Bad form bro.

I said they are the same thing in the sense that they are subsets to the broader category of gender. That is my "definition" in terms of the poll and I have been clear on this. You are the only simpleton here who is struggling with this.


Well, you are assuming that gender roles nd gender identity are both social constructs because both are parts of gender. I am arguing that this assumption is erroneous and that one is a social construct and the other is not, even though you have categorised both as gender.

Yes, and the geocentric model was "settled" and perpetuating debate on it was just a big waste of time right? Scientific consensus or established opinion trade at zero value in the market place of ideas. Debating these matters, as they are controversial, is important for clarity in reasoning and principle and they have moral and political consequences. If you don't care to debate because you already know better and think this thread is a waste of time, then just leave. Otherwise, put-up and shut-up and debate and defend your position. I'm all ears and will always give you a fair hearing.


If you think finding out that 92% of conservative PoFoites think sex and gender are the same thing, how will this affect the veracity of our understanding of sex, gender roles, gender identity, and other related issues?
#14850641
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would a "normal" vanilla cis person's gender identity be based on anything other than their biological sex? How is it a social construct?


Well, those who would argue for self-identification as being culturally conditioned would argue that such a designation as "normal" would be offensive (I won't even dignify your racial pejorative "vanilla" remark with a response, other than to ask: do chocolate cis males not count? :lol: ). Rather, what one is born with is their biological sex and what they "identify" as is socially conditioned. What is maleness anyway other than social norms? (I am playing devil's advocate here a bit). Other than the plumbing or certain other biological factors outside of one's control, identifying as a cis male and fulfilling the expectations associated with that identity are cultural (another reason why identity and roles are so interrelated, the epistemic value of an identity is primarily practical or role-based).

Going back to your vanilla remark, let us not forget that whether race is biological or social is also a subject of serious academic debate right now with the question of "trans-racialism."

Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, you are assuming that gender roles nd gender identity are both social constructs because both are parts of gender. I am arguing that this assumption is erroneous and that one is a social construct and the other is not, even though you have categorised both as gender.


That is obvious, but what I was addressing was that you were mis-characterizing my position as equivalence, when I do not make that claim. I felt I have clearly explained what I mean by both gender and sex. hopefully my remark above and below will help a bit.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you think finding out that 92% of conservative PoFoites think sex and gender are the same thing, how will this affect the veracity of our understanding of sex, gender roles, gender identity, and other related issues?


Well, the equivalence of sex and gender is NOT an option in my poll, so I don't know how such could be concluded by you or anyone else. What the poll is asking is to what degree do Pofos believe that biology informs gender, if at all. The point of this poll is not to advance the veracity of a claim, if I wanted to do that I would have made an argument in propositional form in thread. Interrogatives can be neither true or false and thus a question's purpose (by definition) is not to make an argument, but to gather information. The purpose of this poll is to ASK pofos what their views on the relation of biological sex and gender in fact are. The results are actually quite mixed.

Oddly enough, despite being one of the most "conservative" thinkers on this forum, I actually voted option #4 contrary to most of my fellow far-right brethren, and its not because I have sympathy for trans-gender rights, but because I believe, like ethic identification, gender identification is, for the most part, historically conditioned based on pragmatic considerations of sex for a collective purpose and that the biological binding of such gender expressions are quite weak (if they weren't, they could not be so easily abandoned and confused as they are in contemporary society). I actually agree more with the Far-Left on gender, but come to opposite moral and political conclusions from the same starting premises.
#14850684
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well, those who would argue for self-identification as being culturally conditioned would argue that such a designation as "normal" would be offensive (I won't even dignify your racial pejorative "vanilla" remark with a response, other than to ask: do chocolate cis males not count? :lol: ).


You have never seen the term "vanilla" to describe ordinary or common? Odd.

And that is why I also put normal in scare quotes. But now that we have discussed your confusion, we can move on to your actual point:

Rather, what one is born with is their biological sex and what they "identify" as is socially conditioned. What is maleness anyway other than social norms? (I am playing devil's advocate here a bit). Other than the plumbing or certain other biological factors outside of one's control, identifying as a cis male and fulfilling the expectations associated with that identity are cultural (another reason why identity and roles are so interrelated, the epistemic value of an identity is primarily practical or role-based).


This seems entirely about roles and does not discuss identity.

I identify as a male, and that is because I am cis and of the male sex. This would be true even if I lived alone on a desert island.

Going back to your vanilla remark, let us not forget that whether race is biological or social is also a subject of serious academic debate right now with the question of "trans-racialism."


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vanilla

That is obvious, but what I was addressing was that you were mis-characterizing my position as equivalence, when I do not make that claim. I felt I have clearly explained what I mean by both gender and sex. hopefully my remark above and below will help a bit.


If gender identity is caused by neurological structures, is it biological or social?

Well, the equivalence of sex and gender is NOT an option in my poll, so I don't know how such could be concluded by you or anyone else. What the poll is asking is to what degree do Pofos believe that biology informs gender, if at all. The point of this poll is not to advance the veracity of a claim, if I wanted to do that I would have made an argument in propositional form in thread. Interrogatives can be neither true or false and thus a question's purpose (by definition) is not to make an argument, but to gather information. The purpose of this poll is to ASK pofos what their views on the relation of biological sex and gender in fact are. The results are actually quite mixed.

Oddly enough, despite being one of the most "conservative" thinkers on this forum, I actually voted option #4 contrary to most of my fellow far-right brethren, and its not because I have sympathy for trans-gender rights, but because I believe, like ethic identification, gender identification is, for the most part, historically conditioned based on pragmatic considerations of sex for a collective purpose and that the biological binding of such gender expressions are quite weak (if they weren't, they could not be so easily abandoned and confused as they are in contemporary society). I actually agree more with the Far-Left on gender, but come to opposite moral and political conclusions from the same starting premises.


The point is that people's opinions are not actually helpful to determining the truth.

It would be like asking people on a poll if they believed Creationism was a scientific theory. The fact that a few would say "yes" does not advance anyone's understanding.
#14851104
A persons gender is mostly determined by their biological sex or in rare cases what they personally identify as. So in accordance to your polls question, and the way the question is presented, the answer is primarily biological. However after reading through your responses @Victoribus Spolia, you are trying to emphasis on the social norms rather than genetics or individualism with the term 'gender'. If you are talking about stereotypes or the literal meaning of the word, then the answer is entirely social. So what are you suggesting here? For someone who is clearly articulate, your poll is far from this.
#14851117
Rugoz wrote:I think that depends on the society you look at.

In egalitarian societies I would say primarily determined by biology, otherwise by society.

Why would anyone select entirely/half-half? Stupid choices.


The irony is from what you have written, this stupid choice is what you are also implying.



Nonetheless, I do have a question to ask everyone.

If a person was born with a vagina, has breasts and has also bore three children; yet they drink beer, play football and work as a mechanic, do you identify the persons gender on biology or society?
#14851131
Gender is primarily biological.

Gender roles are probably to some extent informed by biology too. For instance, higher promiscuity leads to more reproductive success in men but not in women, so it's at least plausible that this is a trait that has developed differently in the two sexes.
#14851154
B0ycey wrote:If a person was born with a vagina, has breasts and has also bore three children; yet they drink beer, play football and work as a mechanic, do you identify the persons gender on biology or society?

Biology obviously.

As for Beer drinking, football and working as a mechanic, biology has its say there too.

- Male livers are considerably larger than female livers, a female may well drink beer but she can't drink as much as a man.

- Football like many athletic activities is gender segregated and not because evil patriarchy but so that woman can have a chance of winning too.

- While it is by no means impossible for a woman to take up a mechanical trade, exceedingly few seem to want to, possibly because while it pays well it is dirty and can involve heavy lifting?
#14851216
SolarCross wrote:Biology obviously.

As for Beer drinking, football and working as a mechanic, biology has its say there too.

- Male livers are considerably larger than female livers, a female may well drink beer but she can't drink as much as a man.

- Football like many athletic activities is gender segregated and not because evil patriarchy but so that woman can have a chance of winning too.

- While it is by no means impossible for a woman to take up a mechanical trade, exceedingly few seem to want to, possibly because while it pays well it is dirty and can involve heavy lifting?


Clearly women tend to participate in those activities less for biological and social reasons. In some places they aren't even allowed to.
#14851217
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Gender is primarily biological.

Gender roles are probably to some extent informed by biology too. For instance, higher promiscuity leads to more reproductive success in men but not in women, so it's at least plausible that this is a trait that has developed differently in the two sexes.


As I see it there's no biological reason for women to be less promiscuous outside periods of pregnancy.
#14851241
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Gender roles are probably to some extent informed by biology too. For instance, higher promiscuity leads to more reproductive success in men but not in women, so it's at least plausible that this is a trait that has developed differently in the two sexes.

The women's offspring always contains her DNA.
It is in the woman's interest to have the best possible offspring.
Women therefore look for an alpha male to fertilise her but want to keep a beta male to stay at her side and protect her and her offspring.
Studies have indeed shown that during her fertile period, the woman is attracted to manlier types. This is caused by instinct.
Ideally, the mate will not know that the woman was impregnated by another man.
That man's Darwinian fitness is therefore reduced to zero whilst the roving alpha male will have a higher realised fertility.
Men and women have very different reproductive strategies.
#14851248
Ter wrote:Women therefore look for an alpha male to fertilise her but want to keep a beta male to stay at her side and protect her and her offspring.
That man's Darwinian fitness is therefore reduced to zero whilst the roving alpha male will have a higher realised fertility.
Men and women have very different reproductive strategies.


Alpha / beta are kind of misused terms here. I'd rather say protective / caring males vs womanizers.

Of course the reproductive strategy of the womanizer fails in times of contraception.
#14851251
Rugoz wrote:Alpha / beta are kind of misused terms here. I'd rather say protective / caring males vs womanizers.

Of course the reproductive strategy of the womanizer fails in times of contraception.


Not necessarily because contraception allows the woman to choose whose efforts will be rewarded with offspring. The point of female philandering is to get a better sperm specimen than could be had with whatever she could get by marriage, which suggests she would favour the "womaniser" assuming she could get away with it. Contraception would then rather favour the reproductive strategy of the "womaniser".
#14851259
SolarCross wrote:Not necessarily because contraception allows the woman to choose whose efforts will be rewarded with offspring. The point of female philandering is to get a better sperm specimen than could be had with whatever she could get by marriage, which suggests she would favour the "womaniser" assuming she could get away with it. Contraception would then rather favour the reproductive strategy of the "womaniser".


It's not a conscious decision, it's instinct. No doubt the exception proves the rule.

They have the seat for four years, actually. The[…]

Lol, a Pile-adian :D

An interesting opinion piece by Israeli author and[…]

Right Wing Marxism?

Rural people, of which I am proud to be, are reli[…]